[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 03:35:53PM +0200, Frederic wrote:
> > That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI
> > assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01.
> 
> i know, i know ;)
> 
> 2007-1 is to determine : proposal states that a contractual relationship
> between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be
> established before the End User receives Internet number resources

Exactly.

> contractual relationship will be made with Fees. we cannot occult this.
> (the amount is not the fact of proposal).

This is also true.

> Today i have choice, i have a relationship with my LIR (contractual or
> not) i ask AS and PI (is it justify regarding RIPE condition) and i have
> it. i do not need to have contractual relationship.

Today, you already need a contractual relationship with someone to get
the AS and IPv4 PI space routed for you.  So having another contract that
basically specifies "if I cease to exist, my AS and PI fall back to the
RIPE NCC" is not *that* much more effort.

Given the past discussions about 2006-01, there will *not* be IPv6 PI
space without a clear contractual relationship.

So you need to decide what you want: do you want IPv6 PI?  In that case,
please really consider whether 2007-01 so bad that you can never ever
accept it - because if 2007-01 is not accepted, there will NOT be IPv6 PI 
any time soon.


> we do not support: because we want keep the free of the choice. and the

With 2007-01, you *do* have the choice

 - you can use any LIR you want (if you change LIRs, just move your
   contract)
 - if all LIRs in your region are inacceptable, you can have a direct
   contract with the RIPE NCC.

So you actually have *more* choice than today.  Today, there is no way
to do business directly with the RIPE NCC.

> argument to said we have "dead compagny" and we need to know by a
> contractual relationship is not for us a good way, A procedure seems to
> be a good way... a procedure like domain name.

Domain names require a) a contract, and b) a yearly fee (at least for
domains under most commercially relevant top-level domains).  2007-01 is
actually modelled quite similar to the way the .DE TLD operates.

Please re-read the discussions about 2006-01, and 2007-01, and think 
about what you *really* want - good for you, and good for the Internet 
as a whole.  The end result will always be a compromise, because there
is no way to make everybody happy at the same time - but we need to find
a compromise that is better than what we currently have (which is *bad*).

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  110584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279